Search

The Dangerous & Divisive Social Experiment of Gay Marriage

Editorial Comment

The call to amend the Marriage Act to allow gay marriage in Australia is yet another politically questionable move by the ALP - and another betrayal of the Christian community.

The ALP, under Kevin Rudd, appealed to the Christian community in Australia for support during the 2007 election, then they betrayed that democratically elected leader and installed someone who proceeded to betray all of those values upon which that support was gained. Not surprising then, that they actually lost support and failed to gain a clear majority in the following election. Having isolated the Christian community, now they appear to be hoping to gain some political support from the gay community.

Whilst tolerance and pluralistic values are supposed to becoming increasingly part of Australian society, it would appear that tolerance is not a universal value in society or government institutions. In fact, it would appear that we are seeing an emergence of a kind of neo-xenophobia - but not against homosexuality. It would appear that people are at their most xenophobic in Australia when it comes to issues of faith.

In public schools today teachers can talk openly to students about their values and beliefs when it comes to (homo)sexuality, but if a teacher talks about their faith they are reprimanded and accused of "proselytising". If school principals and administrators are intolerant of the free expression of sincere faith among teachers (or even chaplains!), how does this teach students to be tolerant? And how does this educate a child about the importance of tolerance, diversity and faith in life? And how does this educate students about the central and historical importance of the Christian faith on western civilisation and it's contribution to government, democracy, the legal system, human rights, worker's rights, education and health care?

I hope that the gay community (and their supporters within the ALP) will also one day realise that trying to legally redefine marriage will never deliver the social legitimacy that the gay community so desperately hopes to attain. Having already won equality through civil unions, gay activists seem intent upon asserting their rights at the cost of the cultural and religious values of others. The push for gay marriage is divisive, not only in politics, but in society as a whole. Millions of people still have the enduring conviction that the true nature of marriage is exclusively heterosexual, regardless of what the Marriage Act may decree and these convictions, which are firmly grounded in culture and faith, will continue to endure beyond the vagaries of time, social trends and politics.

But regardless of issues of culture and faith, homosexual activists (and politicians) should try to grasp the simple truth that homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual unions - for the simple and obvious reason of biology. Homosexual relationships cannot reproduce genetically blended offspring, therefore they are not the same in nature. When it comes to full meaning of marriage, with all of its implications for reproduction, family and community, it is clearly not the same. Homosexual couples are biologically incapable of forming the same kind of relationship, in the fullest sense, however much they may want to. They may indeed be able to form something that closely emulates and approximates a biological family, but they cannot conceive it of themselves.

Whilst it may be argued that that homosexuals are capable of having supportive, meaningful and enduring relationships, or that they may become capable guardians of children, there remains a fundamental difference about the nature of those relationships. Homosexuality is clearly an aberration and a deviation from the norm, however normal and natural it may feel for those who have a homosexual orientation. It is a tragic dysfunctional manifestation of human sexuality which is often the result of sexual disorientation in puberty or adolescence, often brought on by sexual abuse, peer influence, social rejection, a desperate quest for identity, cultural conditioning or dysfunctional parenting, or any combination of these.

But seeking to legitimise homosexual relationships by changing the legal definition of marriage is a dangerous social experiment that will only cause further division in society and cause greater confusion for future generations.